Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV03083, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03083    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Prince, et al., v. Harel, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV03083

MOTION:                  Motion for Trial Preference (CCP § 36(e)

HEARING DATE:   12/20/2024

Legal Standard

Where no mandatory grounds for trial preference exist, the court has the general discretionary power to grant priority to any case upon a showing of good cause, i.e. “that the interests of justice will be served by granting this¿preference.” (CCP § 36(e).) In ruling on a discretionary claim for preference, the decision “rests at all times in the sound discretion of the trial court in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 344.) The court should consider such factors as the condition of the court calendar, dilatory conduct by plaintiff, and prejudice to defendant of an accelerated trial date. (Id.) Further, the court may consider factors similar to the grounds for non-discretionary relief, including the risk of an impending loss of Plaintiffs’ ability to assist in preparation of claims or witness testimony. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 12(I)-C.)

Analysis

Plaintiffs Orie Prince and Ryan Weiss move for an order to grant trial preference and set trial within 120 days. Plaintiffs explain that they are tenants at 1632 Crescent Pl, Venice (the “Premises”) since August 20, 2018. (Prince Decl. ¶ 2; Weiss Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendants are owners and landlords of the Premises. On June 24, 2024, Defendants initiated a pattern of conduct which directly violates the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the California Civil Code, including habitually flouting their duties to maintain the Premises in a safe and habitable condition. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendants will not voluntarily remediate the uninhabitable conditions throughout the Premises. (¶ 5.) As such, Plaintiffs have been constructively evicted, and forced to move into five different short-term rentals (including hotels and friends). Plaintiffs have tested positive for mold poisoning as a result of the mold infestation at the Premises. (Prince Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 2; Weiss Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) Weiss developed shingles a result of the Premises’ uninhabitable conditions and his exposure to mold. Plaintiffs cannot move back into the Premises until this matter is resolved given the severe threat to their health.

While the Court sympathizes with Plaintiffs’ position, the Court’s calendar does not allow for priority of this habitability case. Plaintiffs do not present unique circumstances which would justify their priority over the court’s other cases, including similar habitability cases. Plaintiffs do not show that their constructive eviction from the property would risk “irreparable” harm to their case or health. For example, Plaintiffs haven’t claimed that they lack alternative housing and would be homeless pending trial. They do not show that their health issues are such that any delay in trial would risk precluding them from participating in this action. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the “interests of justice” will be served under the totality of the circumstances. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.